Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-07-21
EASTERN NEWS.
Decision by the Interstate
Commissioners
IN THE "BOYCOTTED" CASES
Pittsburgh Visited by Terrible
Flood Which DemOlishes
Valuable Property.


WASHINGTON, July 20.-The Inter-
state Commission to-day dismissed
the following cases: Chicago and Al
ton against the Pennsylvania; Rock
Island against the New York Central !;
f. ID. Harding against the Chicago,
st. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha,
and M. A. Fulton against the same.
The cases of the Alton and Rock
Island roads dismissed are the noted
complaints of those companies against
the Pennsylvania and New York Cen
trail roads respectively, for discrimina-
ton in the ''boycott'' against COM
plainants. These roads refused to
subscribe to the agreement of the
trunk lines to not pay commissions to
ticket agents, and were therefore boy
cotted. This boycott consisted of re-
fusal on the part of the defendants to
sell through tickets over complainant's
roads from Chicago to Kansas City
and st. Louis.
TIE DEClSlON
OF the Commission says, in part, after
detailing the circumstances of the case
at great length, that the offences of
which it has cognizance are, If
done in contradiction
of the provisions of the
act to regulate commerce. The
law in this instance does not re-
guire one road to sell through tickets
over the road OF another company and
in the absence of statuary authority
one road can only sell tickets and
check baggage over another road by
mutual agreement. If the companies
can agree upon this they have a right
to do SO and by this agreement become
Interstate carriers, but if they cannot
agree the act does not undertake to
coerce them. Assuming for the sake
Of argument that through tickets may
be deemed facilities for receiving, for
and delivering of passengers
to connecting lines, carriers are only
required to afford reasonable, proper
and equal facilities.
This presents a question whether
the payment of commissions is in it.
self incidental to the enjoyment of fa-
cilities reasonable and proper within
the purview of the statute. These
are gratuities to induce
special efforts for the company paying
them. II the statute does not give one
authority to subsidize the
agents Of another company, and if the
practice is injurious in its effects, it
cannot be reasonable and
proper. The statute does not
divest any railroad company of the
exclusive right to control its own in
ternal affairs, to employ its own
agents, regulate their duties, COM
etc. With the legitimate
exercise of those powers another COM
pany has no concern, and no right to
THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES
nave forbidden their agent to receive
from any company that
'efuses to recognize this corporate
but insists OH subsidizing
lgents, and in these diret tions The de-
have not transcended
heir reasonable rights. They
night rest upon these rights
,ut they go further, and show by evil
lence the practical effects of commits
ions, and that their natural and
Usual tendencies are to variety Of
buses. The practice capable of gro
lucing and having tendency to pro-
luce such results cannot be reasona-
Die or proper, and a company is fully |
in the use of lawful precau-
ions to protect its agents against such |
INVASION of its corporate authority and
is business morality.
In the source of complaint the |
position is clearly presented by |
he distinct assertion of the right |
# one corporation to employ |
md pay for its own interest an official,
ervant and officer of another corpor-
4tion to which his service is primarily |
md exclusively due. No theory Of |
his character ought to be, and is not,
in business or official |
fairs. The defendant company
therefore, have not contravened the |
PROVISIONS of the act.
In the complaints of refusal to re-
rain from a statement of the commits |
ions, voluntarily excluded by them
elves from the reasonable, proper and
sual facilities offered to them in COM
non with other connecting lines, the
are dismissed, all concur
ing except Commissioner Morrison.
MoRRIsON's OPINION.
Commissioner Morrison, in his dis
entive opinion, takes contrary view
+ the points mentioned above and
ays that, independent of the legality
+ any question of domestic policy be-
ween the companies, the public is
ntitled to that reasonable and equal
AGILITY afforded those who seek the
line. 1t is no answer to
he public desirous Of using the rail-
rays as continuous lines, that there
re differences among the companies.
The cases Of Harding and Fulton
gainst the Omaha road were dis
Missed on the ground that the com
ANY had reduced the rates complained
I since the complaints were made,
nd there is therefore no evidence to
how that the present rates are exces-
i've.